I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Uzi]

@Lobohan

That’s the point, they want to put a labor tax for the (largely Democratic voting) people who don’t have ID currently.

So is the issue that is is the Democrats that are being affected, or that people in general are being affected? Because is sounds you are as partisan as the other side when you say this and I have little sympathy if that is the case.

Because most people probably fall into the same mental trap that you are. Is it possible for most everyone to get ID? Sure. Is it enough work that many people simply won’t do it? Of course.

The same mental trap as you say below? The difference is that you want the government to give them an ID, whereas I believe that people are capable of getting one on their own.

I think we should have universal ID in America. But black helicopter retards will fight it tooth and nail.

Living in Hong Kong where everyone has a universal ID (and has to pay for it), it is the single most useful thing I have in my wallet next to an Octopus card and my bank/credit card. It is worth every penny.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

The Texas voter-ID law is being challenged in federal court, BTW. And as Texas goes, so goes . . . well, Hell, I suppose.

From your link:

The law also places a significant burden on low-income residents. Texas is required to provide a free ID to voters, but an applicant must possess supporting documentation in order to qualify. “If a voter does not possess any of these documents, the least expensive option will be to spend $22 on a copy of the voter’s birth certificate,” DOJ noted. That expenditure can be rightly construed as a poll tax, which the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited.

Interesting conclusion by the article’s author.

Of course, it’s a conclusion that the Supreme Court has already rejected when it decided Crawford v Marion County. In that case, a similar argument was made that the cost of obtaining a birth certificate amounted to a poll tax, and the Court ruled it did not.

The author fails to mention that little tidbit. Why, do you think?

[ElvisL1ves]

Now which is the greater threat to democracy? The greater damage to public confidence? This:

As more states put in place strict voter ID rules, an AP review of temporary ballots from Indiana and Georgia, which first adopted the most stringent standards, found that more than 1,200 such votes were tossed during the 2008 general election.

During sparsely attended primaries this year in Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee, the states implementing the toughest laws, hundreds more ballots were blocked.

The numbers suggest that the legitimate votes rejected by the laws are far more numerous than are the cases of fraud that advocates of the rules say they are trying to prevent. Thousands more votes could be in jeopardy for this November, when more states with larger populations are looking to have similar rules in place.

or this:

Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but fraud appears to be rare. As part of its effort to build support for voter ID laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country. That’s not even one per state per year.

ID laws would not have prevented many of those cases because they involved vote-buying schemes in local elections or people who falsified voter registrations.

Election administrators and academics who monitor the issue said in-person fraud is rare because someone would have to impersonate a registered voter and risk arrest. A 2008 Supreme Court case drew detailed briefs from the federal government, 10 states and other groups that identified only nine potential impersonation cases over the span of several years, according to a tally by the Brennan Center at New York University.

Bolding added.

[Lobohan]

@Uzi

So is the issue that is is the Democrats that are being affected, or that people in general are being affected? Because is sounds you are as partisan as the other side when you say this and I have little sympathy if that is the case.

Honestly, if Democrats were advocating some kind of voter law that would make it more difficult for likely Republican voters to vote, I’d be strongly against that too.

I want everyone to vote. If I were in charge I’d make it a federal holiday, allow automatic registration and have special bus lines run that day.

The same mental trap as you say below? The difference is that you want the government to give them an ID, whereas I believe that people are capable of getting one on their own.

ID is useful, so it is safe to assume that something is acting as a bar for those that don’t have it. Ignorance, getting time off work and travel could be some reasons.

I’d be okay with these laws if there were strong levels of outreach to get IDs into everyone’s hands.

Living in Hong Kong where everyone has a universal ID (and has to pay for it), it is the single most useful thing I have in my wallet next to an Octopus card and my bank/credit card. It is worth every penny.

I agree totally. But some militia types will fight it every step of the way.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Primarily that was my inference all along. That is, telling citizens who HAVE papers that they don’t need papers to vote is useless.

You mean to say that your evidence that illegal aliens were involved is: people who aren’t illegal would already have their papers, hence the advice would be pointless. Only illegals, who don’t have such papers, would need such advice?

Or were you merely commenting on the silliness of wasting time?

See, in the first quote, you were not really definitive, you referred to them as “people”, but then insinuated some involvement with illegal voting, suggesting that conspiracy wasn’t necessary, simply some sort of cultural inclination was all that was required.

But now, they are definitely illegal aliens. (Was there more than one such incident? Were you stalking some CASA hotty for the FBI?, and thus had several such occasions? Or just the one?)

And the number has changed, too. Now its “volunteers” rather than “a volunteer”. Kinda different, see what I mean?

But most of all, why didn’t you turn them in? Clearly, advising illegal aliens on how to break the law isn’t legal or Constitutional! And you would finally have one! count 'em, folks, one!..solid incident of voter fraud afoot! You would have been a hero for the Hannity set, they would have been throwing fistfuls of money at you!

Were you reaching for the phone, and she looked at your with those smoky brown eyes, and totally cooked your huevos rancheros? Is that what stayed your hand from swift justice? But doesn’t that make you an accomplice, having foreknowledge of the crime and not reporting it? Look if you are tortured by this, and can’t quite face turning yourself in…somebody here will help. Somebody will step up. Though I doubt you’d get more than fifty volunteers…

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…The author fails to mention that little tidbit. Why, do you think?

I think he’s not a lawyer.

[MaxTheVool]

I’m very concerned about people trying to vote but becoming victims of violent crimes at or near their polling places. Note that I can’t actually provide proof that this has ever happened in anything greater than totally trivial amounts, but, you know, it MIGHT happen. Therefore I’m proposing a law stating that all polling places must be within a certain number of miles of a police station. Because that way there will be faster police response if these heinous crimes do occur.

Now, you might notice that due to the precise distance I picked, it’s going to turn out that most polling places in rural areas will have to close, and most polling places in urban areas will remain open. And it does happen to be the case that rural areas lean Republican while urban areas lean Democratic.

But I’m not making it IMPOSSIBLE for people in rural areas to vote. In fact, I’ll make sure that there’s a program set up to provide bus transport to polling places. The busses will run in the middle of the day, and you’ll be able to sign up online as long as you have a fairly modern browser that supports the newest version of Javascript.
But remember, there’s a legitimate purpose to this program, namely, to reduce polling place crime.
Bricker, I assume you’d support a law of this sort?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

But most of all, why didn’t you turn them in? Clearly, advising illegal aliens on how to break the law isn’t legal or Constitutional! And you would finally have one! count 'em, folks, one!..solid incident of voter fraud afoot! You would have been a hero for the Hannity set, they would have been throwing fistfuls of money at you!

No. Nobody did anything illegal. No votes were cast. Her only comments were the factual statements that no one would catch a person who registered and voted who wasn’t a citizen.

But what do you mean, finally have one. I have more than one now. They’ve been cited in this thread.

It’s like your mind just won’t let you remember them.

Here’s one example.

In … April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee.

Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times, the only media outlet to cover the sentencing.

Now the cycle begins again. Sarcastic response to this news, followed a day or two later by the return of amnesia and an indignant implication that no one has ever shown you a case of voter fraud.

Right?

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

I’m very concerned about people trying to vote but becoming victims of violent crimes at or near their polling places. Note that I can’t actually provide proof that this has ever happened in anything greater than totally trivial amounts, but, you know, it MIGHT happen. Therefore I’m proposing a law stating that all polling places must be within a certain number of miles of a police station. Because that way there will be faster police response if these heinous crimes do occur.

Now, you might notice that due to the precise distance I picked, it’s going to turn out that most polling places in rural areas will have to close, and most polling places in urban areas will remain open. And it does happen to be the case that rural areas lean Republican while urban areas lean Democratic.

But I’m not making it IMPOSSIBLE for people in rural areas to vote. In fact, I’ll make sure that there’s a program set up to provide bus transport to polling places. The busses will run in the middle of the day, and you’ll be able to sign up online as long as you have a fairly modern browser that supports the newest version of Javascript.
But remember, there’s a legitimate purpose to this program, namely, to reduce polling place crime.
Bricker, I assume you’d support a law of this sort?

No. I don’t agree that there’s a violence problem at polling places. But if you think there is, and can convince your legislators, go right ahead.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

I think he’s not a lawyer.

I think he knows damn well that it’s not legally a poll tax, but doesn’t share that fact because it hurts his narrative.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

No. I don’t agree that there’s a violence problem at polling places. But if you think there is, and can convince your legislators, go right ahead.

So if I did dig up a few incidents of people being mugged on their way too and from polling places, and convinced my legislature to enact this law, your reaction would be “huh, well, I’m not sure I would have supported that particular proposal, but it’s clearly constitutional and was legally passed” as opposed to “jesus, what a slimey and unethical miscarriage of justice”?

[Uzi]

@MaxTheVool

…well, I’m not sure I would have supported that particular proposal, but it’s clearly constitutional and was legally passed" as opposed to “jesus, what a slimey and unethical miscarriage of justice”?

I’d go to the advance poll or vote by mail/online/etc. I’d say about half the time I’ve voted it wasn’t at the designated place and time, but through some alternate method that better fit my schedule.

[MaxTheVool]

@Uzi

I’d go to the advance poll or vote by mail/online/etc. I’d say about half the time I’ve voted it wasn’t at the designated place and time, but through some alternate method that better fit my schedule.

Uhh, what? I guess you’re saying that in my hypothetical, if you were one of the rural people whose polling place was closed, you yourself would still successfully vote, and thus there was no meaningful disenfranchisement going on, and thus you would have no problem with it?

[Bosstone]

@MaxTheVool

Uhh, what? I guess you’re saying that in my hypothetical, if you were one of the rural people whose polling place was closed, you yourself would still successfully vote, and thus there was no meaningful disenfranchisement going on, and thus you would have no problem with it?

That’s conservatives for you.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

So if I did dig up a few incidents of people being mugged on their way too and from polling places, and convinced my legislature to enact this law, your reaction would be “huh, well, I’m not sure I would have supported that particular proposal, but it’s clearly constitutional and was legally passed” as opposed to “jesus, what a slimey and unethical miscarriage of justice”?

Of course, assuming it survived any appropriate court challenge too.

That’s what a representative democracy is all about. My own opinion might be interesting, but if te legislature passes a law and the courts say is constitutional, I may work to change it but I certainly won’t call it illegitimate.

Right now I face a similar problem with abortion, in fact.

[Uzi]

It wouldn’t inconvenience me if I had those alternatives as I mentioned.

[QUOTE=Bosstone]
That’s conservatives for you.
[/QUOTE]

Meaning what? That through a few minutes work I can find out what alternatives are available and make use of them?

Wait for it…“But you don’t have 6 jobs, 5 kids, a partridge in a pear tree, blah, blah, blah (Essentially equals the dog ate my homework). So, of course you’d have time to for such a monumental en devour.”

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

Right now I face a similar problem with abortion, in fact.

The key difference being that if it turns out, in the eventual wisdom of time and history, that a law about abortion is wrong, then public opinion will eventually change, and the law will eventually be overturned. If, on the other hand, a law that affects voting rights is wrong/incorrect/evil, it may never be overturned because it protects itself by having already made fair elections unlikely or impossible.

[Bosstone]

@Uzi

Wait for it…“But you don’t have 6 jobs, 5 kids, a partridge in a pear tree, blah, blah, blah (Essentially equals the dog ate my homework). So, of course you’d have time to for such a monumental en devour.”

“If it works for me, it’s fine. Anyone who claims it doesn’t work for them is clearly lying or not trying hard enough, because it worked for me.”

[MaxTheVool]

@Uzi

It wouldn’t inconvenience me if I had those alternatives as I mentioned.

So, again in that hypothetical, my silly law is passed, you live in a rural area, your local polling place is closed, you jump through some minor hoops and are perfectly well able to vote. And the election happens, and the democratic candidate wins by a narrow but decisive margin (52-48 or something). And you do some research, and find statistics showing that voter turnout was down 5% in the rural areas whose polling areas were closed. So the next time you’re down at the supermarket you ask some of your rural conservative buddies if they voted, and most of them did, but a few are kinda embarrassed and hem and haw about how busy they were.

If all of that happens… you would still think it was a fair and just and reasonable law?

[Uzi]

@MaxTheVool

If all of that happens… you would still think it was a fair and just and reasonable law?

Because I don’t focus so narrowly and because the number is so low, I’d be more concerned about the 50% of the population who doesn’t vote now even without those restrictions.
Really, you guys spend your lives looking down at the pennies falling off the table and don’t see the dollars blowing away in the wind.